Hacker News Reader

Comment by i_love_retros | Hacker News Reader

There's no way most people will accept any change in their lifestyle that is inconvenient and potentially more expensive. And no politician is going to suggest/vote for the serious changes we need as a planet and risk not getting reelected.

I see two outcomes here. One, we destroy the planet and ourselves. Two, violent global revolution that results in a world government that enforces more sustainable living.

Unfortunately three, the overlords come and save us with their advanced tech, probably won't happen.

View on HN

Hang on, politicians won't enforce sustainable living because the voters won't support it, but violent global revolution (presumably from a voting-minority?) does it?

And the "save the planet" faction (which we might think are left-leaning) overlap with the mostly non-violent faction? Whole the conservative drill-baby-drill faction overlap with the gun-loving, govt overthrowing militant types?

So your second possibility doesn't pass the smell test.

And of course we won't destroy the planet. At worst we'll make it unsuitable for human life. The planet itself will be just fine, and life will thrive after-people just like it does everywhere people have left.

Yes, I think the planet will change. And those people unable to adapt will perish. But plenty of people will survive, just perhaps not with current US lifestyles...

I can't make sense of your first two paragraphs with all the question marks.

what makes you think the left leaning save the planet types are non-violent? did you see what happened in russia 100 years ago? or china? or cuba? granted they weren't so much "save the planet" types, but i reckon they were a little left leaning! and it's not too much of a leap to imagine that again with environmental concerns thrown into the ideological mix

Regrettably, I don't think 2 will happen until it's too late, and agree that 3 won't. We are coasting towards one. Any other options?

Any other options?

A lot more solar/wind/nuclear and geoengineering.

> And no politician is going to suggest/vote for the serious changes we need as a planet and risk not getting reelected.

We have solved this in the EU by having politicians in the commission that nobody has elected.

Two a) in a world government adapting to a shittier and shittier life over time

Hmm star trek or mad max. I'll take star trek

Maybe we can get AI to recycle something... I'll see myself out...

What BS. People want to do good.

In the pacific northwest we have Ridwell where people go out of their way (and pay an extra monthly fee!) to separate their garbage so it has a better chance of being properly recycled/downcycled.

You'll see entire neighborhoods where everyone's got a Ridwell box on their porch.

So why did more than half the country vote for trump?

I don't believe most people give a shit about "doing good" if it means effort or cost on their part. Its all virtue signalling.

How many people are doing things that actually make a difference but which are hard, like giving up eating meat?

> So why did more than half the country vote for trump?

A damning indictment of the alternatives

Yes a pesky stable economy, cleaner environment, regulations to keep our food safe, no gestapo... the alternatives sure did sound terrible!

There was a gestapo, you just didn't notice

Oh yes. But....

5he alternatives tell you are racist, sexist, and a failure

A shitty information economy captured by corporate interests and lobbying. People watch Fox News but don't want ICE to deport moms because Fox intentionally doesn't cover when Trump says he's going to deport the moms.

More than half of people that showed up to vote voted for trump. Not half the country.

they are the ones that matter

I think you have it muddied a little.

Consumers often accept less convenient options because it is the right thing to do. Humans are a collective species and we make sacrifices for each other all the time. Quick examples at this level plastic bag ban, electric vehicles, disabled parking etc.

The groups who are kicking and screaming to try and avoid change is capitalist corporations. They will literally do anything to prevent a hit to their bottom line (they are perfectly happy to murder people for profit) and frankly should have no decision making power.

I think you have it muddied.

Plastic bag ban: no one wants to pay for each plastic bag and its also not much of an inconvenience. Unlike having to take 20 glass bottles to get shampoo, milk, drain cleaner, dish soap refilled every month

Electric cars: mostly done for virtue signalling and status

Disabled parking: not sure what you mean here.

Disabled parking is a communal sacrifice that we as humans respect. I see the free parking in the best spot closest to the place I’m going and I don’t take it because I am a normal human.

Sure some people are asseholes, but the vast majority are not.

most people and probably you too (and me) don't take it because it would result in a financial penalty (fine) and social shaming possibly.

also the inconvenience of having to walk a bit further to get to the store isn't much really is it. compared to not buying that new plastic phone, new plastic tv, having to take 20 bottles to get refilled with shampoo, shower gel, milk, coffee, cooking oil, etc every month, taking your own container to the take out restaurant (and then cleaning it!!)... no one will do this unless forced to

You're grossly over estimating how willing people are to inconvenience themselves for anything that doesn't immediately benefit them.

Your examples don't prove anything. Infact, I'd say they do the opposite. Bag bans are always met with tons of opposition. Electric vehicles are 50 years too late. Idk what disabled parking has to do with anything, people ignore those all the time.

People will nearly always choose the easiest and most instantly gratifying option. This is usually selfish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com